THE ATHEIST HAS NO "FAITH." SO HE BELIEVES

Posted: 03/23/09

The atheist has no "faith." So he believes –Ray Comfort

"I was just reading some reviews of your book over on Amazon. LOL. I had a quick look atthe first page of the book and I just had to pass on my observation. The first lie I can see is in the third sentence on page 1: 'An 'atheist' believes thatthere is no God...' While that statement correctly describes me -- I believe thatthere is no God -- the vast majority of atheists do not hold this view. They merely lack belief in gods. Quite different from what you are saying. I'm calling you out on the lie as I know we've explainedthe difference to you many times now. It isn't just a simple mistake on your part. It's a lie Ray." alphgeek

It's true. Most contemporary atheists carefully say thatthey "lack belief in gods." I say "carefully" because they don't wantto be seen as having any "faith" at all, probably because of its overtones.

So let's look closely at whatthey are saying. If I tell you "I lack belief that my Ford truck has a maker," I am saying that I think nothing made it. It just happened. That is scientifically impossible. Nothing is nothing. It cannot "make" anything. If it can make something, then it's not nothing because it has the power to make something.

So the contemporary atheist with his semantics paints himself into an intellectual dilemma. He has the choice of thinking nothing made everything, that something made everything (perhaps God) and is no longer an atheist, or he joins the "Don't Understand How" club--the DUH.

Penn Jillette is a well-known atheist. Look at his honesty when it comes to the issue of believing: "I believe thatthere is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy . . . But, this 'This I Believe' thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, 'This I believe: I believe there is no God.'"

Darwin's Cabbage Racism

Charles Darwin's Origin of Species hasn't always had thattitle. The book's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For some reason, in the 6th edition of 1872 the title was changed. Deborah Drapper said, "Yes its title really is a bittoo long. So why don't we call itThe Preservation of Favoured Races? Don't you think it is time to give the other half of the title its turn. It might catch on really well."

Of course, Darwin's followers don'tthink he was a racist. When he was talking about "favored races," he wasn'ttalking about people, but cabbages:

"Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalizing, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributedto the direct action of the poor soil), thatthey would to a large extent, or even wholly, revertto the wild aboriginal stock."

However, before faithful believers stand in line to look atthe facial hair of Charles Darwin in England's NaturalHistoryMuseum, they may like to rethink aboutthe character of the man to whom they are paying homage. Darwin also said,

"Lastly, more than one writer has asked, why have some animals had their mental powers more highly developedthan others, as such development would be advantageous to all? Why have not apes acquiredthe intellectual powers of man? Various causes could be assigned; but as they are conjectural, and their relative probability cannot be weighed, it would be useless to give them. A definite answer to the latter question ought notto be expected, seeing that no one can solve the simpler problem why, of two races of savages, one has risen higher in the scale of civilization than the other; and this apparently implies increased brain-power."[1]

"At some future period, notvery distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughoutthe world the savage races. Atthe same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."[2]

Could someone explain talkorigins.org means by: "Darwin himself was far less racistthan most of his contemporaries"?

Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.